Pakistan's existential obsession with India, and her inability to think of anything without a direct or indirect reference to India, sticks out prominently
The fact is that we are joined at the hip since 47, we have had several run ins with each other, and perhaps the most major territorial dispute for either side is Kashmir. The troop deployments confirm this view so I am surprised that you are downplaying the importance of India in Pakistan's calculus.
This fundamental mistake, to think that what a Pakistani thinks Indians are thinking is correct, vitiates the entire exercise.
As my penultimate paragraph, which you unfortunately think is moot, spells out, we are well aware that you have your Manmohan Singhs and your Indira Gandhis. And we must plan for the hawks, not the doves in India.
Even here on this forum, we hear the full spectrum of Indian views from peaceful coexistence to outright dismantling of the PA and even balkanization. India's past adventurism though Afghanistan and Baluchistan -- which you will deny -- justifies our concern.
Just because Pakistan is determined not to allow India to be the leader in the region does not mean that India wants to be the leader in the region. All India wants is a peaceful and pleasant experience at SAARC meetings, not the teeth-bared hostility of one of the members infecting any combination of the others.
Again, there's a spectrum of Indian views on this. Perhaps it's a generational thing and, judging by the views of the younger generation, the trend is not good for regional peace. There is increasing clamor by younger Indians for India to become more "assertive" -- a view dutifully echoed by the US.
Much of it is, of course, human nature. After all, what's the point of making a million dollars unless you swap that boring Toyota for a shiny Ferrari?
India has had natural good relations with Afghanistan
Absolutely. I fully accept that India has had stellar relations with Afghanistan -- too stellar for our comfort, given India's shenanigans there -- but my point was that the relationship was terminated post Soviet withdrawal and had to be reinstated. Again, the issue is not just relations with Afghanistan, but an uninterrupted route from India into the CARs. There are only two ways: either via Iran or through Pakistan.
the US works for its own interests, not for Indian interests
Again, no argument. I wrote as much that the US-India nexus was formed because of a confluence of interests over China, Pakistan's nukes, etc. I will admit that I believe Indian (hawks') agenda far exceeds the US agenda in terms of neutralizing Pakistan. Granted, the Indian doves may not share the extreme agenda but the US has decided to bet on the Indian hawks because they are the ones who will take a more "assertive" role in the region.
Pakistani propensity to imagine that some slick diplomacy will revolutionize the world.
You are too kind to use that adjective to describe Pakistani diplomacy; most of us would use very different words. I believe Pakistan's strategy should be to focus on the economy and soft power. It's not about 'fooling anyone' but simply making sure our point of view gets as much airtime as any opposing views.
you are able to say, without even a particle, a scintilla of evidence, that there is a constant Indian reinforcement of its demand that emasculating Pakistan is India's price for any cooperation in the USA's wider geo-political games.
Oh, but we do have evidence. Every time Pakistan even thinks about any military purchase, India objects. Indian propagandists, at home and in the West, are the loudest cheerleaders of censuring Pakistan.
But the best evidence is the behavior and comments of Western and Russian dignitaries when they visit India. It is almost ritualistic for them to utter a few choice words about Pakistan while in India.
I believe that the second last paragraph remains moot
Indeed, if you accept it as fact, then why would you question Pakistan's strategy of preparing for the worst of India while hoping for the best?
